concurring in the judgment.
David E. Rogers, a participant in Baxter’s defined-contribution retirement plan (the “Baxter Plan”), filed this class action under section 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“erisa”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). The class alleges that the fiduciaries of the Baxter Plan violated their duties under erisa, among other things, by selecting Baxter stock as an investment option when the fiduciaries knew or should have known that the stock’s price was inflated. See erisa § 409, 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a). Baxter filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985), prevented the class from suing under erisa § 502(a)(2). In Russell, the Court held that, in the context of a defined-benefit plan, an individual plaintiff who does not sue to recover for a breach that harmed the entire plan may not use erisa’s private right of action provision, erisa § 502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2).
The panel opinion appropriately concludes that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. et al., — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1020, 169 L.Ed.2d 847 (2008), disposes of Baxter’s argument that Russell prevents this suit. In LaRue, the Court held that the concerns that it had expressed in Russell, a case which dealt with defined-benefit plans, do not apply in the context of defined-contribution plans. The Court held that, in defined-contribution plans, “[wjhether a fiduciary breach diminishes plan assets payable to all participants and *707beneficiaries, or only to persons tied to particular individual accounts, it creates the kind of harms that concerned the draftsmen of § 409.” Id. at 1025.
The majority’s opinion also correctly disposes of Baxter’s argument that the pslra1 prevents this action. As the opinion explains, this action is not a securities suit, and the pslra does not amend or supercede erisa.
The remainder of the panel’s opinion comments on the class plaintiffs’ theory of the case. As the panel frankly admits, this discussion is unnecessary to the disposition of the appeal before us. For that reason, I respectfully decline to join this discussion. This interlocutory appeal on a certified question is here on the denial of a motion to dismiss. We have affirmed the denial of that motion, and the case should now return to the district court where the lawyers ought to develop their case without any further counsel from judges of the court of appeals. The advice contained in the panel opinion is given without any adversarial briefing or oral argument and suggests strongly that no other view is possible or at least worthy of acceptance by the district court or by the other judges of this court. In my view, a more restrained prediction of what might develop in the course of this litigation is appropriate until the attorneys and the district court have had an opportunity to develop this case.
. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4).